Martin Bashir???

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

What the hell?!?!?!?!

@MoonJelly

The "forger" said that he was asked to make mock ups of Bank accounts that had been seen. Something he had done before for panorama. He didn't knowingly commit forgery

But he would have had to be given a precise bank account number, and names and accounts. I could see that being necessary for, say, a fictional detective story, but for things like Panorama they're only there as set dressing and it doesn't matter what is actually in the documents.

That’s very true but I guess those telling the forger to do it would’ve thrown their weight around in a horrible, bullying way and would have threatened him with the sack etc. so he just didn’t dare refuse.

That’s very true but I guess those telling the forger to do it would’ve thrown their weight around in a horrible, bullying way and would have threatened him with the sack etc. so he just didn’t dare refuse.

Yes. The difference in personality types (between Bashir & the Graphic design chap) is just glaring anyway. Then there is the power hierarchy.

The idea that Diana was cut off with no protection is disingenuous. It's a matter of record that she dismissed her own CP officers on the night of her death. Aldi that she courted favoured paparazzi for years with tip offs about her own movements.

Martin Bashir asked the forger to do the bank statements as a hurried favour - he worked on them overnight. He invoiced the BBC for the work - £250.

I suppose if Bashir flashed these infront of Charles Spencer, saying words to the effect of 'look, I can prove that your estate manager and other people have been receiving payoffs from the press', Charles Spencer wouldn't say 'hang on, let me check that these are all the correct account numbers and sort codes', he'd see what looked like genuine bank statements, in the names of those people he knew, and believe it. Especially as Panarama and the BBC were supposedly reputable, and we were all probably all far more trusting back then!

@dopenguinsdance

The idea that Diana was cut off with no protection is disingenuous. It's a matter of record that she dismissed her own CP officers on the night of her death. Aldi that she courted favoured paparazzi for years with tip offs about her own movements.

This again was part of her paranoia - she dismissed her security officers, because she believed they were reporting back on her movements.

She'd been led to believe by many - including Bashir - that she was being spied on, no wonder she was paranoid!

Who is seriously ill?

Bashir has had recent heart surgery and covid but was seen getting a takeaway at the weekend.

It would barely be of interest if she was still alive
Speak for yourself!

Meh, she should have listened to the queen. Never complain and never explain.
Yes the little woman should have gone quietly and not worried at all about having access to her dc obstructed or removed

As they say you can’t con an honest man or woman.
What nonsense. Like the parents of Millie Dowler you mean?

At the time of the interview Diana's two sons were at school. Their parents were separated and Diana was always in the news. Whatever the state of their marriage Charles was always going to be her sons father. There is a saying about not washing your dirty linen in public. Knowing tbe publicity her interview would generate didn't she give any thought to the boys she adored.

Again, in the long run, wider context, that this is about her is almost immaterial. Except of course to illustrate the heights to which some journalists will reach in order to plumb the depths!

All this discussion about her, him, anyone else is distraction, the same technique many will rely on to dodge any culpability in this.

This is our press, our news, gatekeepers to our international, political knowledge. Ignoring this is a bit like accepting The National Enquirer, Twitter, as your trusted advisor.

Knowing tbe publicity her interview would generate didn't she give any thought to the boys she adored

Yep. I watched the interview again recently, as I remembered it being explosive but hadn't watched it through the eyes of a parent back then. I could never imagine talking about my children's father like that to millions and millions of viewers. Extremely damaging to them, first and foremost. I was gobsmacked by it, all over again.

I liked Diana. I was sad when she died. I think she did some fantastic humanitarian things. But she was extremely troubled and made some really poor choices as a result. Bashir fed into and off of that. She was extremely vulnerable and exploiting her in such a public manner is beyond low.

But then again, Bashir always has struck me as the nefarious kind of journo who would sell his own mother for a headline interview, and fame.

@Felifox

At the time of the interview Diana's two sons were at school. Their parents were separated and Diana was always in the news. Whatever the state of their marriage Charles was always going to be her sons father. There is a saying about not washing your dirty linen in public. Knowing tbe publicity her interview would generate didn't she give any thought to the boys she adored.

There's a bit of a double standard operating though because Prince Charles gave his own TV interview to one of the Dimblebores. Diana gave the Bashir interview, having been tricked, and believing that she may lose contact with the boys she adored as the RF closed ranks. Also, it's a noted fact (from inquest) that some of Charles' inner circle had been briefing against her (calling her paranoid etc) which was a bit of a cheek in the circumstances, given that recordings of her private conversations had actually ended up in national newspapers and in news stories across the world, and she regularly had to have her rooms at KP swept for bugs. In those circumstances, a little paranoia would be justified I think. Ultimately though, it could be argued that Charles's actions were the most damaging to his children, by maintaining his affair with Camilla PB and trying to maintain a facade of secrecy about it, when the story was already out in the press. How damaging is it to children to be asked to maintain the appearance of a lie, or is it better that the truth is told? But, as ever, it's the woman who ultimately gets the blame isn't it?

There's a bit of a double standard operating though

You're right of course, but then there always is when it comes to the RF

It was said that Richard Aylard became the whipping boy over Charles's interview, but then somebody would have been needed since it seems nothing can ever be a blood family member's fault

www.independent.co.uk/news/prince-charles-and-aide-agree-to-part-ha-1356756.html